- (1.) APPELLANTS have laid challenge to an order dated 26.3.2013, dismissing their Civil Writ Petition No.6547 of 2013. The above writ petition was filed to impugn an order dated 6.2.2013 (P14) withdrawing date of seniority given to them earlier.
(2.) AS per facts on record, the appellants entered police force of the State of Punjab as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the year 1990 -1991. A large number of SPOs were taken in service to meet the law and order problem existing then. By making some amendment in the standing order on 19.11.1991, it was stipulated that those SPOs whose work and conduct would be satisfactory, they will be adjusted as Constables in future. In the year 1991, it was decided that Constables will be selected through direct recruitment, however, an attempt will be made to first adjust SPOs already in service. As per the Policy, process of adjustment/ absorption was started in the year 1995. It is case of the appellants that when without adhering to the norms, pick and choose policy was adopted by the Superintendents of Police to adjust SPOs, some of them came to this Court by filing CWP No.812 of 1994, which was disposed of on 6.9.1995, by passing the following order: - "In view of the fair stand taken by the counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respective Districts Superintendents of Police shall consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption as constables with effect from the date/s the person/s junior to them were appointed. In case, the petitioners are found suitable, orders of their appointment shall be issued. The consequential reliefs relating to the fixation of pay and payment of arrears of salary, shall follow. The needful shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs." Directions were issued to adjust those applicants from the date when juniors to them were absorbed in service.
(3.) THEREAFTER , CWP No.7451 of 1996 was filed by some other SPOs who were not granted benefit in view of aforesaid order of this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.1996 by passing the following order: - "We dispose of this petition with a direction to the respective Senior Superintendents of Police to consider the claim of the appellants for absorption as Constable with effect from the dates persons junior to them were appointed. In case, the appellants are found suitable, orders of their appointment be issued. Consequential reliefs regarding fixation of pay and seniority shall follow. Keeping in view the large number of SPOs/ Auxiliary Constables involved in these cases, we will not order payment of arrears of salary to avoid unnecessary burden on the State Government at this stage. Directions issued above be carried out within six months from the receipt/ production of a certified copy of this order. No costs.' Thereafter, general instructions were issued in the year 1999 to follow the judgment, referred to above. When appellants were not considered and their juniors were promoted, they filed representation followed by a legal notice. When nothing was done, they came to this Court by filing CWP No.6848 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 26.4.2011, directing the respondents to decide representation/ legal notice filed by the appellants. Vide order dated 13.6.2012 (P10), appellants were granted seniority allegedly from the date when their juniors were promoted. However, subsequent thereto, a show cause notice was issued to them as to why benefit given to them may not be withdrawn. Despite opportunity given, detailed reply was not filed, however, only a request was made to extend time. The competent authority, taking note of the facts and various judgments on the subject regarding adjustment of SPOs in service against post of regular Constable, withdrew the benefit given to them vide order dated 6.2.2013. The appellants came to this Court by filing CWP No.6547 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 26.3.2013. Hence, this appeal.;